- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CBO: Trump’s Tariffs Could Slash Deficit by $4 Trillion
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:08 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:08 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
says who?
The all knowing SFP!
quote:
How the frick can you post that number and not link where it came from?
He did the quick math in his big brain.
Come on now. You know SLP is the brightest among us. I'm not sure how the world ever got along with out his knowledge on EVERYTHING.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
it's in the OP. It's the entire premise of the "article".
No it isn't. It does mention $3.3t, but the part where all of it will be direct taxes on American citizens was Slow's ignorant editorial. Which apparently you agree with.
Eta
This was also in the article
quote:
The CBO projection also highlighted that the added revenue from Trump’s tariffs would help counterbalance the effects of the Republicans’ tax-cut and spending bill passed earlier this year.
That legislation, scored by CBO as adding $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next ten year
So the "cost" of tax breaks exceeds the revenue from tariffs. Even in the dumb hypothetical that all tariff rev will come from your pocket, it's more than compensated by the tax cuts Trump is pushing.
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 9:14 am
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
While raising the cost to consumers over that time by $3.3 trillion The interest payments would be the net gain. $700B over 10 years, or $70B/year. Napkin math. But you get the gist
Divorce lawyer economics folks. Only thing missing is who gets the credit card points.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
You're bad enough as a lawyer so you should probably stay focused on that
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:13 am to udtiger
quote:which is a fricking stupid presumption typical of the kind that would be made by a fourth grader
He presumes 100% of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Some are still holding out because they think that admin will continue to blink
So in other words you acknowledge your math was bullshite thanks
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:16 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
This isnt new money in the system, its just re-distribution of wealth.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:16 am to PaperTiger
quote:
Thats a useless stat. The point is to stop buying that product made overseas. You don't HAVE to buy that same priduct.
No that would cause this forecast to be wrong. If you stop buying tarrifs stop coming in. Americans must pay this extra tax on foreign goods otherwise there's no benefit to deficit.
I'm loving how tax and spend Democrat policies are popular here now. It's downright fascinating
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:17 am to Grumpy Nemesis
Businesses are just going to suck it up and absorb the cost out of the goodness of their hearts. They love America THAT much!
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:17 am to GRTiger
quote:
The point is to stop buying that product made overseas.
Not feasible.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:18 am to tigeraddict
quote:
it's not a 1 for one increase. the cost of most items imported is going up bit not the full % of the tariff. companies are still trying to keep market share while they are trying to figure out moving more production domestically to avoid the tariffs.
Yep! The turth is no foreign company is wanting to give up the USA consumer. It's a death blow to them. They make a product at $10 cost, sell it for $15 to the importer and the importer sells that to the consumer for $30.
Now you have a 10% tariff. The company can either give up the market share, or adjust. That 10% is $1.50. The company can eat that, still make profit while maintaining their market share. OR they can split it with the importer. .75cents each.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:25 am to BCreed1
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 9:26 am
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:27 am to BCreed1
quote:
Yep! The turth is no foreign company is wanting to give up the USA consumer.
There are economic realities they cannot ignore, genius.
You'll either pay a lot more for your products or you'll get far less products to choose from.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:28 am to GRTiger
quote:You’re presuming that tax breaks and tariffs are enacted on the same people. In many cases they are not. It also tells you the money is already “spent” in the form of tax breaks. So how ill the same $1 “pay” for tax breaks and reduce the deficit at the same time?
So the "cost" of tax breaks exceeds the revenue from tariffs. Even in the dumb hypothetical that all tariff rev will come from your pocket, it's more than compensated by the tax cuts Trump is pushing.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:29 am to Taxing Authority
We're all presuming quite a bit when it comes to consumption costs 10 years out.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:31 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
says who?
Simple math.
Again, I don't understand how y'all can not comprehend that money doesn't just appear out of no where.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:31 am to GRTiger
quote:Fair point. We all know Congress will spend every marginal dime it takes in and more.
We're all presuming quite a bit when it comes to consumption costs 10 years out.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:39 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:43 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
He presumes 100% of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers.
which is a fricking stupid presumption typical of the kind that would be made by a fourth grader
It will be, and the ones too stupid to understand that are y'all.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again) "passing the costs along to consumers" doesn't have to just look like raising prices.
It can look like cancelling expansion plans (which costs the economy jobs), freezing raises and promotions (which causes wage stagnation), laying people off (costs jobs), etc., etc. and here's the thing that I suppose you guys are simply too stupid to comprehend...even if companies do NONE of those things (which they will, but for the sake of being stupid so that maybe you can understand), even if they don't react at all and just choose to become less profitable, that still costs consumers because the stock market will react to the lowered profitability. I guess there will be some Americans that it doesn't affect if they have no retirement vehicles that involve stocks, but that is the segment of the population that everyone else is already paying for, so...
There's no way to avoid this, as many times as you close your eyes and click your heels together with your ruby slippers and say, "There's no guy like Trump."
You can't make 2 + 2 = 2. There's no way to do it. There's no magic wand you can wave to make that happen.
Every dollar you siphon out of the system actually comes out of the system...it's not like Schrodinger's Cat that comes out if the observer wants it to but stays in if the observer wants it to.
It comes out in some way. Either higher prices, wage stagnation, the loss of jobs, loss of earnings in the market. You can't pull a rabbit out of a hat and the rabbit still be in the hat.
Why do y'all refuse to acknowledge that?
Popular
Back to top


0






